I've appreciated much of Frank Schaeffer's commentary at The BRAD BLOG but his column here this week on Obama winning was an exception. Schaeffer labels himself an "Obama supporter" and explains that Obama supporters are "sticking with our President." The language Schaeffer uses, after identifying himself as a "former religious Rightwing agitator", is helpful in illuminating a troubling pattern of thought that is widespread in our society:

"We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us."

Here is faith, or at least faithfulness, explicitly entering politics through the advocacy of a recovering religious advocate. As everyone knows who has tried to recover from a pattern of thought, it is far easier to reject or reverse the specifics than it is to step outside the framework. But it is the framework that I find disturbing. I disagree with the point of view above just as much as I disagree with rightwing religious agitation, and for the same reasons. I don't want to be a faithful, trusting supporter of a uniquely great and good being...

I have a different understanding of how a just, peaceful, sustainable society can be created and improved upon. Lasting and advantageous public policy, I believe, should come from the majority of the public and should be established by our representatives in Congress, and should be enforced by a weak executive who obeys the same laws we all must obey. Even if I believed we had, for the moment, a benevolent President who voluntarily took his agenda from the public will, I would not want him or her to be able to create laws, spend funds, launch wars, or engage in any of the activities the founders of this country, so fearful of the ever-present danger of the "great, good, and uniquely qualified man," wisely placed in the legislative branch.

Schaeffer looks with scorn upon the "easily distracted Left" which has failed to "stick with our president" and had the nerve (to a pathetically minimal extent) to heed the President's advice to "get out there and make me do it," that is to treat the President as an elected representative rather than a dictator. But distraction is in the eye of the beholder.

The distractions that concern me are those that distract us from our job of pressuring the House of Representatives to block war funding, block Wall Street bailouts, and hold elected officials accountable. Has anyone noticed that none of the dozens of subpoenas issued in the last Congress against criminal members of the Bush administration have been reissued since the Justice Department fell under the tight supervision of the "great, good, and uniquely qualified man"? Of course not. We're too busy reading about that man himself and his personal travails as a superhuman personification of American goodness. To wit:

Not since the days of the rise of fascism in Europe, the Second World War and the Depression has any President faced more adversity. Not since the Civil War has any President led a more bitterly divided country. Not since the introduction of racial integration has any President faced a more consistently short-sighted and willfully ignorant opposition - from both the Right and Left.

Really? Those who think promises to reform NAFTA, support the Employee Free Choice Act, withdraw troops from Iraq, enforce the rule of law, halt the practice of rewriting laws with signing statements or creating them with executive orders, cease abusing "state secrets" privileges, create more not less transparency, broadcast meetings online, stop funding wars outside the standard budget, protect the rights of prisoners, promote the creation of a public healthcare option, comply with international treaties and laws, and apply the law equally to all should be upheld are willfully ignorant in roughly the same way as those who believe the President was born in Africa and wants to create communism, and who threaten his assassination? Here's Schaeffer's explanation:

As the President's poll numbers have fallen so has his support from some on the Left that were hailing him as a Messiah not long ago; all those lefty websites and commentators that were falling all over themselves on behalf of our first black President during the 2008 election.

The Left's lack of faith has become a self-fulfilling 'prophecy' --- snipe at the President and then watch the poll numbers fall and then pretend you didn't have anything to do with it!

Schaeffer links to polling, not on the public's view of any particular policy, but on whether or not we "approve" of the President in toto, an absurd polling practice that itself promotes the silly presidentialism that follows. If I like the President's nominee for the Supreme Court and dislike his murderous attacks on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, do I "approve" of the President, or don't I? What about after I've factored in a thousand other issues? Am I a citizen in a democratic republic or a high school student electing a prom king? Is our republic deeply secular or does it demand of me, above all, "faith"?

Schaeffer defends the President, whom he implicitly makes responsible for handling everything the Congress, the states, and the people should be handling, by listing all the disasters he faced coming into office "none of which was his fault," handily omitting the fact that Obama was a senator who voted to worsen most of the disasters Schaeffer lists.

Schaeffer then offers a dead-on and helpful critique of rightwing rhetoric, but wishes that those emitting it would instead "help our new President (and our country) succeed." It was a king of France who most famously identified his country with himself. Do we now think he had the right idea? To some degree, consciously or otherwise, a lot of us must. And this apparently requires us to self-censor any criticism while trumpeting any praise.

Obama's immoral, criminal, and unfathomably stupid decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan is described by Schaeffer as a "bad choice" he was "forced to make." Schaeffer criticizes the Right for neglecting the poor of the world, but firmly plants tape over his mouth when it comes to our country's policy of bombing the world's third-poorest land.

Schaeffer wisely councils patience and perseverance in political life. Those words of wisdom should be heeded, but we should not be more patiently silent and accepting of our fate. We should be more persevering in the eternal vigilance and mobilization of public pressure on our elected officials that is required of democratic citizens, conceiving of democracy as the antithesis of a worldview in which people can speak of their lord, their savior, or their "great, good and uniquely qualified man."

Schaeffer wants us to imagine that "maybe, just maybe" we are "not as smart as [our] President." This attitude is anti-democratic. In western tradition it comes easily to too many of us, and that is the lasting legacy of religion.

Schaeffer concludes with a list of Obama's supposed accomplishments. Here they are with my respectful, appropriate, qualified, participatory, and corrective commentary:

Continued the draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq

Actually Obama had promised to withdraw one or two brigades a month for the first 16 months. Here we are in month 11 and that process has not begun.

Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan

The legal, moral, and best choice would have been to end the occupation and engage nonviolently with diplomacy and aid.

Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights

Frank Schaeffer or I can do that. Elected officials need to act, not speak.

Restored America's image around the globe

Actually, the gloss has worn off in much of the world, as well as in this country.

Banned torture of American prisoners

Torture was already illegal. By forbidding the prosecution of torturers but pretending to "ban" torture, Obama has turned a crime into a policy choice.

Stopped the free fall of the American economy

Where are you living?

Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community

By announcing in a peace prize acceptance speech that he maintains the right to launch illegal wars? By refusing to sign Kyoto? By refusing to support a ban on land mines?

Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming

Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances

This is simply false. He has proposed to give mock trials to those most easily convicted, military tribunals to others, and no trials at all to others still.

Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin

By cutting deals with the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the rest of the healthcare industry and imposing them on Congress?

Responded to hatred from the Right and Left with measured good humor and patience

After documenting hatred from the Right and reasonable criticism from the Left, this equation of the two is a disservice.

Stopped the free fall of job losses

Where?

Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far Right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty"...

Fair enough.

Showed that he could not only make the tough military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly

If only that were true.

* * *

David Swanson is the author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and track David's public appearances to discuss it at http://davidswanson.org/book.

David Swanson:bravo for using "willfully ingnoring" instead of ableist language. You make a good case, as usual, often. I think "former religious Rightwing agitator" as self-identity says much, but I'm not exactly sure what, beyond "Rightwing". It suggests that he's meeting Obama at right of center and not much of a shift. What's sad to me, sadder, is the so-called (what word? liberal, left, progressive) who are making excuses for Obama.
I'd like to see a list, from one of them, as to differences by Obama's Administration from the Bush Administration - specifically ACTIONS not words.

Very well written and well-argued, David. Thanks for the corrective. And thanks, Brad, for hosting this opposing viewpoint; I was close to tossing the blog away in disgust. I'll try to be a little more patient next time.
Frank, I'm not sure what you're looking for in life, but I don't think you've found it in the Orthodox Church yet. I admire your passion, but with spiritual maturity comes disciplined, true, radiant, and robust words, not fearful grasping.
Nevertheless ... Frank, David, Brad, everybody ... happy holidays to you, and carry on, carry on ...

Remember Obama's bullshit attempts at hoorah tough-guyism by proclaiming he was going to take a gun to a Republican knife fight... and instead he took trillions of dollars worth of our money and gave it to the oligarchs with a smile?

Well, while Obama et al were planning on yet another leisurely backstabbing of American citizens next week... Jane Hamsher has done gone and pulled out a rocket launcher on his sorry ass.

David Swanson, It was terriblely unfair to knock him out with the first punch then keep on punching when He was out cold for 15 rounds. Where was the ref?I was pretty pissed yesterday but I feel better Today. Thanks.
Very well done sir!!!

If we don't bring the troops home then we will be experiencing the old adage, "what goes around comes around" & we'll ultimately have revolt in America instead of fighting in foreign wars.

There's a new book out that's powerful cause it shows the citizen's of a small town in America who finally stands up to continual, foreign wars & tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It all fits the French & Indian Wars & the colonist taking a stand.

It's a great book that takes on all the current problems today & shows what is in store for America soon. It's a must read.

We are in the interesting and frustrating position of living in a country where the majority of people are consistently convinced to vote against their self-interest. Obama is a great example of how our system works; too many people who should know better are so relieved that Obama is not W that they refuse to see that they both serve the same masters.

Should we care that Obama has dedicated his administration to Goldman Sachs when W's was for the oil and war industries? Or should we notice that neither shows any interest in helping the average American?

I've read both articles, but I think Mr. Schaeffer's is better. The president has done a lot, and while there are bones of contention, to say he hasn't taken a lot of meaningful action is not true.

This article ignores the fact it takes 2 to tangle. The Congress and the Supreme Court have to do their part.

"Lasting and advantageous public policy, I believe, should come from the majority of the public and should be established by our representatives in Congress, and should be enforced by a weak executive who obeys the same laws we all must obey."

Well, Mr. Swanson, how do you propose we get our government to operate like that? Because quite clearly in your opinion, elections aren't working.

Schaeffer: Obama "...picked the best choice regarding war in Afghanistan..."

Not only is this wrong. It hides reality. Here is what he wants you to ignore.

Clips

...one white crest in a sea of thousands, but Kira knows Colin's grave like home.

She comes to it in the morning, before the air fills with the sounds of idling tour buses and rifle salutes. She comes bearing gifts, an armful of fresh flowers or some plastic ones when it's cold.

For more than three months, she has come to Arlington National Cemetery to talk to Colin about the minutiae of her life, to kiss his narrow white headstone and to stretch out her slim body next to his as if they were lying together again.

Kira is no war widow. She is 19, and just barely, at that. The young couple's only talk of marriage had been a joke about their similar last names, hers Wolf and his Wolfe. But they fell in love at once, the kind of reckless, consuming love available only to the young.

"The kind of love where your whole world is on fire and you can't stop smiling," she said. "The kind of love where you dance around and you don't feel like you're part of this world anymore."

They dated for one perfect month before he shipped out to Iraq with his fellow Marines from Camp Lejeune, N.C., in July.

The day he left, she gave him a gift - a camera, and instructions to photograph everything he saw. As he rounded the barracks without so much as a glance behind, she told herself he would be back in seven short months. She could wait.

But he came back much sooner, just seven weeks after his departure, his burned remains laid in a flag-draped coffin. He was buried at Arlington on Sept. 11, five years to the day that inspired his journey, killed in a war that began when he was 16 years old.

—Washington Post | Monday 1/1/07 | p A0

So let's have less pontification about abstract "choices" and more action to stop agony...

Thank you Brad for posting the opposite viewpoint here. Both posts make me think and this is the education I need for understanding left, right, middle and far out craziness.

As a newcomer to politics (in middle age), I do have to thank Obama for making me pay attention. Neither of you mentioned that very important point. For me, politics started about 3 yrs ago. I don't know all of the history, the back room deals but I do know that it was Nixon that said "I'm not a crook" and that kept me away from this left, right tug of war before.

I look forward to 2010 to expand my knowledge of the history of politics and look forward to learning more on your blog Brad. Thanks again for all you do. It is appreciated.

Hi All: thanks for the comments on my article and for David's article too.

Meanwhile back on planet earth the US Senate just made history with the first step in meaningful health care reform.

Best, Frank

PS.

Re Obama, responses to my pro-Obama piece, and responses to the responses.... etc. Note that Andrew Sullivan says it well in the Atlantic. So rather than go back through everything again and again for the Obama critics here it is from Sullivan. (The Atlantic Dec 23, 09).

My own view is that 2009 has been an extraordinarily successful year for Obama. Since this is currently a minority view and will prompt a chorus of "In The Tank!", allow me to explain.

The substantive record is clear enough. Torture is ended, if Gitmo remains enormously difficult to close and rendition extremely hard to police. The unitary executive, claiming vast, dictatorial powers over American citizens, has been unwound. The legal inquiries that may well convict former Bush officials for war crimes are underway, and the trial of KSM will reveal the lawless sadism of the Cheney regime that did so much to sabotage our war on Jihadism. Military force against al Qaeda in Pakistan has been ratcheted up considerably, even at a civilian cost that remains morally troubling. The US has given notice that it intends to leave Afghanistan with a bang - a big surge, a shift in tactics, and a heavy batch of new troops. Iraq remains dodgy in the extreme, but at least March elections have been finally nailed down.

Domestically, the new president has rescued the banks in a bail-out that has come in at $200 billion under budget; the economy has shifted from a tailspin to stablilization and some prospect of job growth next year; the Dow is at 10,500 a level no one would have predicted this time last year. A stimulus package has helped undergird infrastructure and probably did more to advance non-carbon energy than anything that might have emerged from Copenhagen. Universal health insurance (with promised deficit reduction!) is imminent - a goal sought by Democrats (and Nixon) for decades, impossible under the centrist Clinton, but won finally by a black liberal president. More progress has been made in unraveling the war on drugs this past year than in living memory. The transformation of California into a state where pot is now more available than in Amsterdam is as remarkable as the fact that such new sanity has spread across the country and is at historic highs, so to speak, in the opinion polls. On civil rights, civil marriage came to the nation's capital city, which has a 60 percent black population. If that doesn't help reverse some of the gloom from Prop 8 and Maine, what would? And, yes, the unspeakable ban on HIV-positive foreigners was finally lifted, bringing the US back to the center of the global effort to fight AIDS as it should be.

Relations with Russia have improved immensely and may yield real gains in non-proliferation; Netanyahu has moved, however insincerely, toward a two-state solution; Iran's coup regime remains far more vulnerable than a year ago, paralyzed in its diplomacy, terrified of its own people and constantly shaken by the ongoing revolution; Pakistan launched a major offensive against al Qaeda and the Taliban in its border area; global opinion of the US has been transformed; the Cairo speech and the Nobel acceptance speech helped explain exactly what Obama's blend of ruthless realism for conflict-management truly means.

The Beltway cannot handle all this. And that's why they continue to jump on every micro-talking-point and forget vast forests for a few failing saplings.

But when you consider the magnitude of shifting from one conservative era to one in which government simply has to be deployed to tackle deep structural problems, the achievement is as significant as his election year.

I remain, in other words, extremely bullish on the guy. There is a huge amount to come - finding a way to bring down long-term debt, ensuring health insurance reform stays on track and reformed constantly to control costs, turning the corner on non-carbon energy, reforming entitlements, finding a new revenue stream like a VAT, preventing Israel from attacking Iran, preventing Iran's coup regime from going even roguer, withdrawing from an Iraq still teetering on new sectarian conflict, avoiding a second downturn, closing Gitmo for good, ending the gay ban in the military ... well, you get the picture.

Change of this magnitude is extremely hard. That it is also frustrating, inadequate, compromised, flawed, and beset with bribes and trade-offs does not, in my mind, undermine it. Obama told us it would be like this - and it is. And those who backed him last year would do better, to my mind, if they appreciated the difficulty of this task and the diligence and civility that Obama has displayed in executing it.

Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for - if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform.

Equivalent nonsense=Styve is an intellectual lightweight and egotist who should be paid no never mind. This is all too evident by the fact that he doesn't know how to spell the name Steve and then adds self-delusion to ignorance by inserting the letter "y" in the middle of it to give the false impression that he is always questioning.

Seems to me Sullivan's own piece starts off with some rather significant caveats as he's going through the list of "achievements"--Gitmo remains enormously difficult to close and rendition extremely hard to police, civilian cost(in Afghanistan) remains morally troubling, and Iraq remains dodgy in the extreme. That's the first paragraph. Furthermore, just about every claim in the piece I would take extreme issue with as Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Naomi Klein and others have been doing brilliantly covering much of this material.

I've admired a lot of your recent work Mr. Schaeffer but I think you're a bit wide of the mark on this one. I imagine we'll all be keeping track to see who's right, who's wrong, and continuing to do our own interpretations of reality. Here's to common ground in the future.

How much has the United States given away in benefits to Wall Street millionaires under the new administration? How many foreclosures has it prevented?

Why is "too big to fail" an unchallenged statement? How many direct emergency loans could have been made to homeowners with the billions given to the banks, in order to allow them to pay their mortgages? How many homes could have been partially purchased by the government, so that the existing homeowners could have continued to live in them, but they'd owe the government a portion of any future sale? Why was a plan like this impossible, when it was apparently possible to get around all laws preventing billions from the Treasury being used to rescue banks (and bankers)?

The theme of the government rescue has been that by saving the banks, the government has helped people. The theme of the government rescue could have and should have been to help save the people from the banks.

Yes, Obama is a master at obtaining "victories." He gives away whatever he deems necessary in order to obtain the "victories." The mainstream media in the United States, owned by the very people to whom Obama has buckled, then issues the necessary congratulations to convince people like you, Frank.

President Obama got into office by riding a unique tidal wave of support that resulted from the total and transparent failure of his predecessor's policies and attitudes. He had a total and complete mandate to turn the ship around, despite a loud, insane minority that would complain no matter what.

When Mr. Bush got into office on a one vote margin from his corrupt electorate of nine, he proceeded to do exactly what his backers wanted, ignoring the fact that he hadn't even won the popular vote. He took the nation into an unneeded war, he attacked the poor in every way possible, and he opened the Treasury to his friends.

What has President Obama done with his real, honest, overwhelming mandate? He's crafted a sixty person health care deal in a chamber that requires a fifty one person majority; a deal that emasculates the better deal crafted in the people's chamber. If that's leadership, and it is, he's a fine leader. The question is, who benefits from this leadership?

The uniqueness of President Obama is his ability to recast what were, just one year ago, the off the wall, outrageous crimes of the mad cowboy from Crawford into reasonable and permanent fixtures of American democracy, with bipartisan support in Congress and the near universal admiration of most of the world.

I think she was wrong about the admiration everywhere else. They seem to be cooling on him much faster than we are, but the point is still as chilling and deadly as the arctic storms freezing the European homeless to death right now. That is precisely what he is doing... especially obviously from seeing the center right's praise of him.

One more merrrrry christmas wish from the "downer left," Frank. Why not read Helen Simpson's fiction in the current New Yorker --- it was written before Obama's victory at Copenhagen, but otherwise it could have been inspired by our shiny new President and all his wins.

Evidently, Jane Hamsher is hitting a nerve. DKos is devoting itself to knocking back anybody and esp. Jane who would dare ask that Rahm Emmanuel be fired and investigated for shady dealings with Freddie and Fanny Mac.

This war is interesting.Obamarhama wants bipartisan co operation between parties. Little did we know it would be just between republicans and the DLC.Jane is reaching out to all who are tired of a corporate led govt.

I personally am a democrat from way back.But I think Ron Paul has some great ideas. Harry Reid, Chuck Shummer, bill, hill and rahm Never ever vote right. Continuing to fund an illegal war particularly bothers me about democrats.TARP

@Zapkitty #7 and Agent 99 #9: I read the Jane/Grover letter yesterday and sent it out to a few people and got crickets for a response, while I think it's explosive. However, here is a comment I saw today on another blog:

"With this, whoever has ever said "there's no such thing as Christmas miracles" have been proven utterly wrong.

"With that said, considering that Rahm Emanuel is more slippery than an eel clinging deep inside a barrel full of warm grease, and that (so far) Eric Holder has shown about as much independence (and integrity) as Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Baghdad Bob) during Saddam's fast fall from power, I won't be holding my breath while Holder (pretends to) ~consider the validity and worthiness~ of Hamsher's and Norquist's "demands"."

Unfortunately, I don't sense this is going to get much traction. We'll see if Jane can get some face time on Rachel's show with it but I don't sense it.

And thanks to David for such a well written response to Frank's piece. To Frank: Do you really think Andrew Sullivan refutes any of David's points just by repeating the same bland "accomplishments" that you did that aren't factual?

I don't think either Jane or Grover thinks it's going to faze Rahmbo or Holder, but one thing is for certain: Jane Hamsher took a two by four and smacked Obama's teeth out of his smug puss. And that was gorgeous. She means it. She means it like everyone in our government, everyone in our country should mean it.

Grover Norquist! Oh-my-god-oh-my-god-oh-my-god! Just dazzling! This might be the thing that redeems that hardass dirty fuck, even though he doesn't mean it like she means it.

People make the mistake of thinking the Republicans don't want this bill, that they were filibustering to sink it. They were filibustering and tea partying to turn it into what they got, and to make Obama look like shit while getting precisely the legislation that he too was after. Mission accomplished. I don't know why people fell for The Party of No shtick with this Republicans' wet dream bill, but they sure did.

Even though lots of Republicans wanted this "healthcare" bill to fail for the wrong reasons, doesn't mean it shouldn't have failed for the right reasons. I hope Howard Dean gets in bed with Sarah Palin next. I hope Bernie Sanders wakes up and calls Newt Gingrich. I hope Russ Feingold calls Dick Cheney. I hope everyone with decency in their hearts gets together with these rotten sons of bitches and fights to the death to stop this filthy business once and for all.

I flipped, and emailed everybody I know, and I too got mostly crickets. Terrifying, really. It really scares me how many can't see past this partisan warfare song and dance. Scares me how fascists in both parties can keep the minions hypnotized with it. Scares me how fast people will turn on one of their own when that one wakes up and goes to the mat for them.

So much of the common cognitive dissonance comes from the two party system and the loyalties needed to sustain it, to make the ping pong work, so that people don't realize they are the ball being batted back and forth by both parties' elites (and the special interests funding them). But what if real progressives, true conservatives, libertarians and greens could unite on the big issues listed by Agent 99?

99 -
Yeah, it's a strange world these days. Like Jane & Grover, I find myself on the same side as the right wing kooks --- only, of course, for different reasons. Jane's in it for social and economic justice while Grover just hates Rahm Emanuel, probably --- not a bad reason but not good enough (because probably Grov should be in the cell next to his pal Jack). On the right/left scale, it's basically all politicians and the media on the right and most of the people on the left.

I also think this issue of Freddy and Fanny is too complicated for most people to understand or give a shit about. I will lay down money that Jane will NOT be on Rachel with or without Grover talking about this.

Well, Kim, I care like hell that Rahmbo be stopped in his tracks at last, and, I dunno, if Rachel is half the hero she's being made out to be, she sure had oughta have them on. If she's really only on there to stoke the rubes, then it's time we found out about it!

So here's another beautiful thing about Jane's heart: It will show just exactly who's on our side and who's shilling for the big boys.

99 - I do NOT think Jane will be on. I don't know if you noticed, but in the beginning, Rachel was going after O for all his backtracking on campaign promises, etc. Round about February or so she stopped --- lucky for her all that C Street crap started coming out. I read that she and Keith were told to lay off the Prez. And she pretty much has. She does the best she can but it ain't Democracy Now. And we'll see if even Democracy Now reports on it! Hey, Brad, you're doing Molloy next week... got all your guests lined up yet???

Gracias to all ya all. It all brings to mind a point a friend made to me about Frank's piece last week. What's the point of all this? At best we're noticing how useless and distracting it is to get caught up in useless corporate Left vs corporate Right crap. At worst, we're being distracted by all this corporate L vs R crap and not doing/reading/writing something more useful.

Thank you Brad for David's Swanson's dose of sanity. Thank you David. Thank you Frank for your effort. Hope that 12 step program to quit 12 step programs works out for you.

For the rest of us, I'm thinkin we oughta recognize Obama for the Gorbachev he is. And probably the US for the USSR-just-before-the-former-USSR it is. I'm not sure where that leaves us and am more interested in such practical matters.

Who knows though? Obama could team up with Conyers, Sanders, Boxer et al. He could take the senate bill next month, reconcile it with the house bill, strip the corporate welfare, reinstall a decent public option (or even single payer) and ram it all down Lieberman et al's collective throat in one day before big Pharma and health insurers can drop a money bomb of $2B on the fascist media with lies that make OReilly look sane.

Then again we might all be afflicted with simian aviator exiting rectum syndrome. I'll be looking for the monkeys. And something more useful to do/read/write.

It'd be just grand to hear an EXTENDED interview with her about the anomalies BBV discovered on NY23's untried Sequoia-Chavez voting machines. I'd also love an in-depth explanation of the status of the ES&S/DIEBOLD/PREMIER merger. (A substantial perk would be having an audio link to send every damn sentient voter with a working index finger in the U.S. so they can hear about that, too.)

I'd also love to hear from any of the wond'rous, heroic, underfunded, underplugged voting right's groups (from Florida) who've signed on in support of the ES&S anti-trust investigation? (Susan Pynchon / Ion Sancho would be awesome, too...)

With 2010 looming, it's more important than ever that we listen to our expert front-line election investigators/ mathematicians / computer programmers/ friendly election officials. In fact, we should be vocally supporting and amplifying their work by reporting it, repeating it, and shouting it from the effin' rooftops with all of our repetitive megaphoning cyber-might. From our perches on remote, high-tech mountaintops we should be beating out our SIMPLE MATH AS CONSTANT MANTRA, with metaphoric war paint smudged all over our (clothing optional) bodies.

As Karen from Illinois is right to point out, everyone understands impossible numbers - more votes than voters, more voters than votes, erroneously inflated / deflated vote totals. Not only that, but if we've learned anything from the teabaggers (because Lord knows they can't learn anything from us) it's that if we can let our crazy hang out, we're more likely to make headway with getting our (correct, rational math) some play.

If I had to do Florida 2006 all over again, I'd walk into the board of elections office with my video camera, barge into Kathy Dent's office and accuse her of killing kittens and lesbianism. Then I'd sit back wait for CNN to call.

Respectfully, we need a tight(er) coalition of social networking news. It's so easy to do and costs nothing to just COMMIT to each other here as community contract - please, my people: 'Digg', 'Reddit', 'Twiit', 'Retwiit', 'Stumble upon', Repost, Embed, and circulate the articles / info / video here on Bradblog. It makes such a huge difference.

I enjoyed you on the Mike Malloy show. Frank made me think of the possibility of what could be without Obama in the White House. I guess that is scary. But fear, although a great motivator, cannot be the basis for our action, or we will all be responding to the latest and greatest fear that is out there.

I want to remind Frank Schaeffer of what was going on 30 years ago when his father was at his peak. The tolerance for his father's writings came from the same logic - it is not as bad as what could be. So I, while I was in seminary, hated his father's writings and what was going on with the evangelical movement. But, for the sake of tolerance and the fear of what could be, remained silent. Many of my silent friends from the past are now in seminaries and private schools teaching. They still remain silent. They will be the ones who like what you have to say because they are part of the religious who now cannot speak out. They tolerated your father and other writers because of the fear of what could be. At least it was better than the other possibilities, was their logic. So, I fear that Frank's plea is really a wonderful song for the people that I graduated with in seminary in the 70's and 80's who are now stuck in a place where they are still fearful to speak out.

Tolerance for Frank Schaeffer's father's writings gave the religious write a pseudo intellectual justification for their intolerance and ignorance. The same justification is happening today with Obama. People point out that at least he thinks, or has good logic, or is smart. It is the same argument that gift wrapped the religious right with Francis Schaeffer. Believe me Frank, in the trenches of the church, tolerance for your father empowered the ignorant. Don't do that today with Obama.

Frank's argument does not take into account the adjacent possibilities (Kauffman) of what could be. What could the religious scene in America look like if I and other's had spoken out and stood for what we really believed? What were the adjacent possibilities that were "left behind" because I, along with dozens that I know of in church positions, kept our mouth shut?

30 years later I feel that I am listening to Frank Schaeffer sit around and talk to me under a tree at seminary in 1979. It really does feel like he transported me back 30 years ago and got me fearful of the alternatives. I, today, wish I had spoken out against Frank's father 30 years ago. Today I can't help but think that Frank is taking the path I took 30 years ago.

I think it is time to stand up for what we believe in and speak out against Barack Obama. Frank's support for Obama is not faithful to what we know, just as my silence 30 years ago was not faithful to what I knew about his father.

Barack Obama has taken a course of action that will not lead to anything other than a continuation of wars around the world, and Wall Street benefiting at the expense of Main Street. To support this in any way only strengthens it. If I live 30 more years I don't want to make the same mistake that I did in 1979.

I think Frank's way past that stage, David, it's not like giving up booze or heroine, when you've clear-lighted like Frank, you are RELIEVED of your prejudice, it s the very darkness that parts to create the enlightenment.

Lee Marvin, speakng about the practicality of life and it's hardest lessons, said in "Paint Your Wagon" "There's nothinn' worse than a reformed whore".

Well, to the wngnuts, thee's nothing worse than a reformed evangelist, because they know all their "secrets."

I trust Frank's perspective more than David's, Frank's been there and done that, David's just watched from the sidelines.

re comment#54--"I trust Frank's perspective more than David's, Frank's been there and done that, David's just watched from the sidelines."

This comment really pisses me off. I don't know David Swanson personally so I don't know his lifestyle but I've been reading him for years and to describe what he's been doing, how involved he is, how much information and insight he consistently brings to the table, how clear and invigorating his writing is, as--just watching from the sidelines-- seems completely unseeing to me. But maybe this commenter doesn't know about his writing and work and so may be talking out of his/her hat.

Furthermore, this ending sentence says absolutely nothing about the relative merit of the two differing points of view offered about Obama. As such it's a rather substantless comment.

Well, Frank's been right in there with the big corrupt government officials and David's only been in the audience at their committee meetings... I think... so, in that sense, JEP is right. Whether this is grounds for trusting him more seems pretty shaky to me....